CA Unpub Decisions

A decision regarding despite concurrent insurance coverage for the contractor and the subcontractor for the same accident, the contractual indemnity provisions control as between the parties to the indemnity provisions.

A decision regarding despite concurrent insurance coverage for the contractor and the subcontractor for the same accident, the contractual indemnity provisions control as between the parties to the

Financial Pacific Ins. Co. v. W. Coast Fire Prot. Systems

Filed 4/25/06 Financial Pacific Ins. Co. v. W. Coast Fire Prot. Systems CA3

(use .pdf version or print layout in Word to see graphic, p. 6)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

FINANCIAL PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST COAST FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS CO., Defendant and Respondent.

C048772 (Super. Ct. No. 03AS00779)

Story Continued from Part II……….

The essence of both Rossmoor and Mt. Hawley is that despite concurrent insurance coverage for the contractor and the subcontractor for the same accident, the contractual indemnity provisions control as between the parties to the indemnity provisions. That rule extends to the parties' respective insurance companies.

If the only companies involved in this lawsuit were West Coast and Sierra and their respective insurance companies, the rationale of Rossmoor and Mt. Hawley obviously would apply and the entire loss should be borne by West Coast and ultimately its insurer. The presence of Admiral and Blueline, however, confuse the issue.

At first blush, an essential requirement for the application of Rossmoor and Mt. Hawley appears to be missing. As West Coast's cosubcontractor, Blueline was not a party to any agreement between West Coast and Sierra. Thus, it, and its insurance company, appear to have no interest in the negotiated risk assignment between West Coast and Sierra. Thus, it appears the controlling factor in Rossmoor and Mt. Hawley -- the concern of negating the effect of an agreement between two contracting parties -- may not be present here. We, however, do not agree.

The proper analysis of this case must focus on the nature of the relationship between Financial Pacific and Sierra. When thus focused, it becomes apparent that Rossmoor and Mt. Hawley apply. The simple reason for this is that Sierra is an additional insured of Financial Pacific. â€

A decision in a case regarding doctrine of contribution and not subrogation.

A decision regarding declaring dependent children of the court.

A decision regarding possession of a weapon in jail. (a five and one-half inch plastic toothbrush, sharpened to a point)

A decision in which mother challenges juvenile court's order removing the children from her care and placing them with their father.

A decision regarding violation of Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a)(1),which prohibits a minor from possessing a firearm that is capable of being concealed upon the person.

A decision regarding order declaring her a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code. The order followed a finding Eliza committed felony assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and misdemeanor battery.

A decision regarding petition for a writ of mandate.whereby sought an order directing defendants and respondents, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and administrative law judges, to set aside an administrative decision pursuant to which respondents found that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had cause to dismiss Regan from employment.

A decision regarding stalking in violation of a restraining order.

Cecision following conviction for attempted murder, assault with a firearm. and attempted second degree murder.

A decision regarding attempted murder and related offenses,

A decision regarding kidnapping in the commission of a carjacking.

A decision regarding driving under the influence of alcohol. He then refused to submit to a chemical test of his blood-alcohol level as is required by Vehicle Code.